Posted on 04/21/2004 11:17:44 AM PDT by righteousindignation
Hamtramck,Mich.--Over some residents' objections, the City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to allow a mosque to send out a call to prayer to Muslims on a loudspeaker....five times a day.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If you truly believe that then you're both ignorant and completely unaware of what's going on around the globe!
It can be, yes. You know when it can be "peaceful?"
When everyone is a muslim! Does that tickle you?
Otherwise it can't be and isn't! The Quran calls for violence, death, and oppression of those who are not muslim in varying circumstances.
Look, this really isn't an argument between me and you! It's an argument between yourself and reality. Go read the Quran. I did after 9/11. It won't take you long. A few days to get the jist. Much of the violent stuff is amongst the first 10 suras.
This is a partial repost of an earlier one in regards to someone else who though Islam only had two exclusive worlds: them and everyone else who must die or convert:
... They appear to be trying to say it [Dar al-Islam] means the zone of people who have submitted to Islam. "Islam" itself means submission of one's self to God, so the meaning is really "house of those who have submitted themselves to God." The writer then contrasts that with the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, with which Muslims must be at war to turn into the Dar al-Islam.
Actually, Dar al-Harb is not defined properly. It is for those other nations that are persecuting Muslims, at war with them, or unfriendly to them. It's really a classification any country gives to others. I think in the U.S. we would consider North Korea to be Dar al-Harb.
So what of nations that are at peace with Muslim countries yet aren't Muslim? The writer groups them with Dar al-Harb, but there is another: Dar al-‘Ahd, which covers those countries at peace with and have treaties and diplomatic relations with Dar al-Islam.
There is yet another concept called Dar al-Amn, the House of Peace/Trust. It's where Muslims are living in a non-Muslim country (likely Dar al-‘Ahd) where their right to practice their religion is protected. There is no cause for Muslims to war with such a country. However, if various anti-Muslims in this country get their way, it will turn us from Dar al-‘Ahd to Dar al-Harb.
Added: Of course, radical Muslims who care more for conquest than religion likely already classify us as Dar al-Harb.
They could do that and get away with it, ASSUMING the slammies actually start broadcasting their muetzin call. The town fathers would be faced with the prospect of arresting everybody connected with every church in town for doing something they just the slammies the right to do, and they'd back down.
Read 262. It's more about what many Muslims do with their religion than what their religion is. And war is not necessary from the Quranic view.
Go read the Quran. I did after 9/11.
I did after 3/1991 in the Gulf War and have been reading other stuff since. I've also met and talked with Muslims in four different countries, two of them Muslim-controlled. You don't realize that the average Muslim just wants to live his life happily, serving his god, just as a Christian does. There are exceptions: those living in the slums sucking up hate speech; those too stupid to think for themselves listening to hateful leaders, and those leaders themselves. Those also happen to be the only ones you see on the news.
I have no problem offing all those people. Even I as a governmental fiscally-conservative person would find the cost of the bullets to be justified.
Seems like a win/win to me. If they back decide not to go forward with the calls to prayer then issue solved. If they decide to move forward then all the better as an opportunity to broadcast scripture into the communities.
So does the Bible.
It necessarily dictates that non-muslims pay a tax to the Islamic establishment.
In Muslim-controlled countries. I'm not saying that's right, it's a law for ancient times that should be discarded as many Christians have discarded their old laws.
It necessarily places anyone but muslims in a lower societal status. It necessarily forces those same people to essentially serve muslims.
That got fairly interesting in practice, as the non-Muslims eventually took up a whole essential strata of society and became in themselves important to the functioning of the society. But back then at least the Christians weren't being slaughtered as heretics by other Christians. To them alive with taxes was better than dead.
It clearly does not provide for the freedom to pursue happiness as outlined in the founding documents of this country.
As far as Shari'a goes, it is. Many Christian-based laws that I see as infringing on our rights have been upheld. It's just a different set of laws. That's just an objective point of view. Of course I wouldn't prefer this country be run on Muslim laws -- the Christian ones are bad enough. But I'm sure you'd probably like the prohibitions against adultery and homosexuality.
My question to Muslims who don't agree with the "violence" stuff in the Quran is "why are you muslim then?" Either you are muslim and you agree with the Quran, or you are not!
Do you still think mass genocide, rape and slavery are good things? That's in the Old Testament. But I know Christ came along and changed things, so you think women should keep their heads covered in church, not speak up, and be completely subordinate to men, their play toys in essence? Do you think women should not be allowed to teach? Do you think women should not be allowed to braid their hair or wear jewelry? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you think those are not good ideals, but they are in the New Testament. But how can you claim you are a Christian if you don't follow such misogyny?
And to your point, where is the outrage amongst all these "peaceful" muslims at what their "violent" counterparts are doing?
It's there, but it doesn't hit the news much. I've even seen a few articles like that on FR.
Maybe he is speaking out, but you said you'd boycott him anyway just because of his ethnicity, which isn't right.
They use various non-annoying means all over the world, but these guys just want to be dicks. The city council shouldn't have caved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.